Pronation Continues to Be in Question
When one of Nike’s top researchers, Gordon Valiant, the head of biomechanics at the Nike Sport Research Laboratory, comes out and says “despite over 20 years of stability elements being incorporated in running footwear there is, as yet, no established clinically based evidence for their provision,” you know something can’t quite be right. As supportive shoes, inserts, and pronation devices continue to both be questioned by the general populace as well as fairing poorly in clinical research, it’s ever so important to listen closely to your body, do your own research, and run natural.
In a recent article published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, Valiant’s research indicates several interesting aspects regarding pronation. Summarized by Peter Larsen it’s as follows:
1. 32% of the women missed training days over the course of the study. Another way to think of this is that there was an injury incidence of 32% in this population of runners, which is in line with other studies on running injury.
2. Motion control shoes “resulted in both a greater number of injured runners and missed training days than the other two shoe categories.” In other words, motion control shoes faired very poorly all-around.
3. Every runner in the highly pronated group who wore a motion control shoe reported an injury. In other words, all runners (yes, 100%) who were supposed to be wearing a motion control shoe based on their degree of pronation got injured. It’s a small sample, but this is simply astonishing. In fact, highly pronated runners actually fared better in neutral shoes!
4. Neutral runners experienced greater pain after runs when wearing neutral shoes than they did when wearing stability shoes. Although the authors point out that the difference may not be clinically significant, it is once again amazing that neutral runners faired better with a shoe that would not have been “prescribed” for them in a shoe store based on their degree of pronation.
5. Pronated runners experienced more pain after runs if wearing a stability shoe than if wearing a neutral shoe. Again, they did better wearing the “wrong” shoe for their feet.
Valiant went on to say that “Our current approach of prescribing in-shoe pronation control systems on the basis of foot type is overly simplistic and potentially injurious.” So what should we do? Ryan, co-author with Valiant puts it quite clearly. “If a salesperson says you need robust motion-control shoes, ask to try on a few pairs of neutral or stability shoes, too. Go outside and run around the block in each pair. If you feel any pain or discomfort, that’s your first veto. There really are only a few pairs that will fit and feel right. My best advice is, turn on your sensors and listen to your body, not do what the salespeople might tell you.”
We agree. Listening to your body is of the utmost importance. By focusing on proper running technique and footstrike, all of us can run healthier, happier, and yes…faster. Elite runner Dathan Ritzinhein chimed in on the topic recently in Runner’s World magazine saying “I was definitely more of a heel-striker, so I’m definitely getting on to my midfoot more. I wouldn’t say I get all the way up to my toe. I think I’m more efficient for the marathon if I stay in more of a midfoot stance anyway. But definitely, the posture of my body and the range of my stride, that’s all stuff that has just kind of come through. Initially, the problem was we tried to focus solely on changing that without being strong enough to do it. We went back to trying to build it up from the strength side so it (the stride change) naturally took over instead of trying to think about it consciously.” The biomechanist that worked with him to change his footstrike? None other than Nike’s own Gordon Valiant.
So stop listening to all the marketing jargon and do you’re own research. Do what feels right…run natural.
Resources/Similar Articles:
British Journal of Sports Medicine
The Running Shoe Model Needs to be Fixed (Steve Magness)
